Forum Guidelines to aid poster requests...

Hello cb1_mobile,

I agree with points a to e. However f and g is something I would keep optional. On top of the list you have my inputs that you have mentioned.

(h) TIVA Device and Revision of the device using SYSCTL.DID0

(i) TIVAware Release and Version

(j) IDE and Version

(k) External Debugger Hardware (XDS, Stellaris ICDI)

The use of the entries while troublesome for a poster (and at times done half heartily) will help gauge the severity of the problem and reach solutions faster.

Regards

Amit

Amit Ashara said:

The use of the entries while troublesome for a poster (and at times done half heartily) will help gauge the severity of the problem

If proceeding logically, systematically & completely is judged, "troublesome" - how do we characterize posts "devoid" of those attributes?  Are they really - in total - less troublesome?  Really?

Good habits must be established, modeled & practiced.  By providing no (or minimal) rules/guidelines - do you not force, constant/unending, "Poster Forum Invention?"  Even if they wanted to post correctly - where is their guide?

From long field experience - across 4 continents - "accessory MCU components" and "incorrect/inadequate MCU powering" have often been noted.  I'd question the wisdom of any such "saving/reduction."

A "Poster's Template" could be quickly/easily developed - with posters asked to simply, "fill in the blanks."  Those blanks - front/center on the template - serve to well guide the poster - and cannot be missed.  (as too often happens when relying upon a "sticky" or worse yet, sporadic, "signature blocks.")  That template would embody both your and my guidelines - modified as your firm sees fit - of course.

You may be "guessing incorrectly" when pre-judging as, "done half-heartily." Our tech intern staff follow such rules/guidelines - and almost universally find them beneficial.  And - more than once - they've added new items as/if required.

What's proven "half-hearted" is the "wild-west" (i.e. no rules, no (or poorly positioned) guidelines... i.e. the forum as it runs, with little (or no) real rule enforcement nor clear, up-front, "in your face" guidelines...)

Note: group here was surprised & pleased to note thread's promotion to, "sticky" status.  Seeing that - we felt it better to re-title (via edit) - to make the post more inclusive & inviting.  In that process - apparently - heralded "sticky" status has departed...

Hello cb1,

I checked and it seems that the system cannot be modified to take in the parameters we have been discussing. The only solution that has been given is something what MSP and CCS have been doing.

http://e2e.ti.com/support/microcontrollers/msp430/f/166/t/5531

Enforcing such rules if people miss doing would be difficult but in the long run make it manageable. Some of the things suggested by the E2E forum moderators:

• Getting a “Getting Started” video setup
• Monthly/Bi-Monthly New user external WebEx where run through “basic/getting started topic” and section on using E2E forum and as well have one or two power users on that could also speak followed by a Q&A
  • Similar – Hold a monthly/bi-monthly “Show your project” session via external WebEx

Regards

Amit

Hello Amit,

Thanks your efforts - always appreciated.

How sad!  I'm a fan of indirection - yet believe I've argued well for a, "Fill in the blanks" (far more direct/effective) Forum Template format.

While helpful - those E2E moderators seem not to recognize - nor appreciate - the "power" of an, "always there - in your face" forum template entry format.  Such guides & prompts even new users to a successful posting.  Viewing a video - if it can even be quickly/easily found/loaded - come on!  (will poster's take notes, will they recall the video's fine points - really?)

I'm fortunate to have neat boat & small plane.  And - each/every flight, every sail - I check, air-worthy status & sea charts.  Of course "real pilots" (Dreamliner et. al.) have long (and always) employed, "Pilot check list."  That's very much "normal/customary" and insures that, "all of the majors are covered!" 

So too - the proposed Forum Template (a simple, fill in the blanks) method to "each/every time" GUIDE posters in providing the necessary, essential data.  Minus that template - each/every post proves too often - a disjointed, "adventure!"  And that "invites/welcomes" great time/effort inefficiencies...  Not good!

Current method surely, "over-taxes" you/vendor others.  (and those many, outside, content providers.)  Forum users such as myself can either sit - silently - or try our best to offer well (and long) thought alternatives.

My small group has reasonable resources.  If the, "system which cannot be modified to take in the added parameters" has a name/vendor - I'd be willing to contact and see if "some" work-around may be engineered. 

Long ago we were told that our tech firm, "couldn't succeed via similar, "steering of user input."  We didn't accept that - and our resourcefulness, focus and energy (& engineering) propelled our firm to a successful, "public offering!"  A "bandaid" would not have worked then - a real/valid, "fundamental transformation" was our ticket - and myself/others now sense - yours too...

It's 03:xx where I am - thus I may be (slightly) more delusional than normal - but the response, "System cannot be modified" seems (now to me) w/out merit!

I often partially compose my forum posts in, "Notepad" then simply paste into the forum. 

So - is it not SIMPLE (and instant) to create the suggested Template w/in Notepad - and have posters enter their issues and data into Notepad (via the Template format) and then, "Paste that into the forum?"   (exactly as I've done - many of my 3K+ (but who's counting) forum posts!)

Indeed - things which are to be resisted cannot be modified!  Or not!

Hello cb1,

Thanks for the pointer on the template. I will run this as one with the Forum folks. The system is when a new post or reply needs to be done, the entry box is what is kept as blank page.

While you and some of us would use the notepad approach to make things well, others may want to skip such methodical and just get on to the problem. But still I would make this point when discussing with forum folks if we can have a trial on something like this.

Regards

Amit

Hi Amit,

Took me a good 5 minutes - but voici:  (Template Suggestion #1)  Notepad is ideal as the forum accepts it nicely - it's simple, universal, available and escapes the format complexity of similar programs.

Suggested Forum Template:

Dear forum poster,

Your use of this template will speed, ease & enhance your issue/problem resolution.  The more detail you can provide - the better.  Here is a general guide to assist you:

ID your MCU:

ID your IDE:

ID your SW version:

ID the issue's peripheral or module(s)

ID your board - is it custom or Eval/Launchpad - which one?

Has that board - that peripheral - ever worked?
 

Does the issue persist across several boards?

Describe your experience level: (first time, Arduino migrant, MSP user, hobbyist, programmer/engineer)
 

List the test/verify operations performed thus far - along w/results

What test equipment is available?

ID your board power source - has it been checked, is it adequate?

 

Now - as a simple test - I've copied the forum post (just above) and pasted:  (I'm only fractionally as smart/skilled as E2E forum bosses - but appears the "impossible" (i.e. claim "cannot be modified") has been done)  (and @ 03:xx)

Modification was "never" the issue.  Problem Solving was - and no firm/person has a monopoly on such...

Everything below the *** resulted from simple, "copy/paste" of the post (just above).  Even Notepad is thus escaped...

*************************************************************************************************************************************************

Hi Amit,

Took me a good 5 minutes - but voici:  (Template Suggestion #1)  Notepad is ideal as the forum accepts it nicely - it's simple, universal, available and escapes the format complexity of similar programs.

Suggested Forum Template:

Dear forum poster,

Your use of this template will speed, ease & enhance your issue/problem resolution.  The more detail you can provide - the better.  Here is a general guide to assist you:

ID your MCU:

ID your IDE:

ID your SW version:

ID the issue's peripheral or module(s)

ID your board - is it custom or Eval/Launchpad - which one?

Has that board - that peripheral - ever worked?
 

Does the issue persist across several boards?

Describe your experience level: (first time, Arduino migrant, MSP user, hobbyist, programmer/engineer)
 

List the test/verify operations performed thus far - along w/results

What test equipment is available?

ID your board power source - has it been checked, is it adequate?

While on this (brief, lucky) "hot-streak" may I further suggest the creation of a simple, "sticky" titled, "PF0 and/or PD7 have gpio issues!"  (I know there's one more pin - but, "regardez le temps")

Present sticky titles are too vague, too general - imho.  Can it hurt to, "Better alert" your client-users?

Hello cb1, All,

I would preparing a draft of the Forum Guidelines based on what MSP and CCS already have and posting it on the site for comments (need a few days)

Also the NMI and Common GPIO Problems will be merged into one thread... As the theory goes KISS.

Regards

Amit

Amit Ashara said:

NMI and Common GPIO Problems

Be still! (this reporter's (bit) aged heart.)  Amit - great thanks for championing our slight tweak to this, "top cabin" forum.

Hope that a Forum Posters' Template can (still) be fairly considered.  "Fill in the prompts" (as suggested - and implemented nicely w/in a template) eliminates much of the normal/customary (and overwhelming) LACK of most necessary issue data by posters - which so plagues so many posts... 

Any thread named, "NMI or GPIO Problems" is way too vague - imho.  "PF0, PD7, PE7 Alert!" remains my - far more direct/understandable preference! (clearly "NMI" is meaningless to the great majority of new arrivals/posters...)

In boldness - and directness - there is greatness.  (vagueness - not so much...)

Hello cb1,

Of course, the GPIO Post needs to be highlighted.. And Info to be provided when creating a post made comprehensive

Regards

Amit

Amit Ashara said:

Of course, the GPIO Post needs to be highlighted..

Maybe we (mean) - but are not saying/writing the same thing!

Our group's (strong/continued) belief, the existing sticky title, "GPIO Problems" is far too vague!  (avoids the direct identification of  PF0/PD7 w/in the title!)   Posters must be drawn to - then click upon - and then read/review that sticky.  This has long proven to be sub-optimal...

Instead, "PF0, PD7, PE7 Alert" is far more direct, more forceful - and far easier to recognize when poster's PF0 output fails!   (as it has - iirc - some (very) few times!)  We've seen trouble arrive continuously thru use of such indirection - is it not time (now) to adopt exactness - provide clear, sound warning?

As a new and largely derivative post has recently arrived - believe it's best to grant this more detailed & historical leader - it's just due.

There exists a simple (yet colorful) wordage which best describes current forum post-management, "Inmates enabled to run the Asylum!"  While somewhat humorous - the reality of this descriptor is undeniable - and points (strongly) to the need for far more (active & effective) forum, "post oversight & direction."  Avoiding post-management has proven to both, "encourage & enable" inept postings - which is completely preventable!

Our tech firm works often in the ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) markets - we must report that in almost all cases - SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) exist - which effectively serve to insure that, "All critical bases are covered and that (avoidable) mayhem is prevented!"  The military also is a strong believer in SOPs.

Our forum may best adopt such SOP via use of a pre-designed, Forum Post Template - which educates, guides, & structures posts - so that they have the greatest clarity & value - significantly raising the odds of effective resolution.  In fact - such guidance is similar to the well respected, "OJT" - call it "OFT" here. (On the Job & On the Forum Training)  Nowhere else would new users be, "given the keys" without some formal guidance/instruction/requirement!

A proper Template may serve as a "single repository" - which far more effectively links to key APP Notes, known issues (PF0/PD7), and logical & systematic trouble-shooting tips/methods...  While these currently exist - they're too scattered & ill defined - to be quickly/easily searched and located...

Indeed this is (new) for here - yet so many will benefit from such guidance & well structured, "resource central."  Many new posters are (indeed) coachable - we fail them by neglecting these experienced/proven, "caring/guiding" basics - do we not?  

Schools exist for a reason - these ARM MCUs are complex - this forum is a wonderful resource and with slight tweaking may be spectacularly enhanced...

I was actually hopping for more interest from other users on this, either on agreeing or disagreeing but it seems indifference is what most have with the topic

Hello Luis,

There would be agreement and disagreement to aspects of the post but not indifference. Let me explain why

1. The entry method for a user would be a formal interface and needs a menu check so that "NA" does not become the user's entry of choice. The old saying my mentor had for designing a FIFO is "Junk In Junk Out", unless you do not what you are to do with the FIFO.
2. How many of us actually use "search" before a post. Let me honest "very few".
3. The users of this forum have put up their perspective and that is what should count.

Regards
Amit

This reporter would be delighted to learn of (any) disagreement w/the logic & template-guidance suggestion offered in the "summary thread" post (here) 2 Jan 2015.

Inmates do (not) run the (usual) asylum - and that's for quite good reasons.

A simple text file (as past detailed here) may quickly/easily be copied into the new post - and used as the guiding template - far better insuring that (most) of the vital data requirements are included.  Users entering "na" may be easily corrected (again as recently stated) via, "Conformance w/template guidelines: "Speeds, Eases, and Enhances" this forum's response.  Minus conformance - post will "wait."

It's (always) easiest to construct roadblocks, raise objections - proclaim "less than perfect."  (to such "outsider" ideas)  Yet the existing, "Inmates calling all shots" is clearly wasteful of time, effort & significantly dilutes this most valuable forum resource...

Amit raises, "Junk In leads to Junk Out."  Is that not precisely what we (too often) now have?  And - what this thread - attempts to reduce?

How will new posters "know" what to include - how to proceed logically - what is expected?  Is not the (suggested) "fill in the blanks" Template a strong, "Step in the right direction?"  Or - we can sit/wait - do nothing - surrender to the (fear) of "na."  (which - I believe - has been effectively countered)

Standard Operating Procedures (as detailed in that 2 Jan 2015 post) have long been recognized (and acknowledged) as (critical) in insuring completeness & correctness. 

Inmate procedures - skilled, thorough, caring & precise as they are (i.e. Does not Work...Urgent) have (yet) to receive (nor earn) high regard...

Only "NIH" prevents this (both simple & clear improvement) from being, "No Brainer!"